BALKRISHNA TULSIDAS Vs. SARUPCHAND PURSHOTTAMDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On September 23, 1913, the defendant appeared before me, while sitting on the Original Side of the High Court, in answer to a summons, taken out in Suit No. 802 of 1913, whereby the plaintiff claimed from the defendant Rs. 4,718 being the price of a packet of diamonds purchased by him as mentioned in the plaint. The defendant appeared in person and admitted the claim and a decree was pissed. Till the present time the plaintiff has not succeeded in recovering anything out of the decretal amount.

(2.) In 1922, the plaintiff took out a Darkhast, No. 117 of that year, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Thana in which ha described the judgment-debtor as an agriculturist. Accordingly, the proceedings were ordered to be sent to the Collector in order that he might sell the properties attached by virtue of the Circular appearing at p. 107 of the High Court Manual. The Collector returned the proceedings without the properties being sold as there was no bidder for the same. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the description of the judgment-debtor's occupation in the darkhast was erroneous. He was not an agriculturist, and he could not be an agriculturist as far as the suit was concerned, since the decree, out of which those proceedings arose, was pissed by the High Court. For those reasons, the Subordinate Judge held that, if the judgment-debtor's case was that he acquired the status of an agriculturist, after the decree was passed, then the obvious reply seemed to be that his changed status would not affect the plaintiff who had successfully obtained a decree against him as a non-agriculturist.

(3.) The Judge, therefore, overruled the contention of the judgment-debtor that an issue should be raised to decide this status, and acceded to the request made on behalf of the decree-holder that the darkhast should be amended as regards the occupation of the judgment-debtor and the properties belonging to the judgment-debtor should be sold by the Court. The appellant judgment-debtor has no case whatever on the merits. He does not claim that his properties cannot be sold by virtue of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. He merely objects to the property being sold by the Court instead of by the Collector. Considering all the circumstances, that the decree was passed in 1913; that the judgment- creditor has recovered nothing at all during all these years; and that in all probability the objection was taken more for the purpose of delay than for anything else, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Subordinate Judge.